The Compromise of 1850, Term Paper Example

Introduction

The impact of the Civil War is such that historians continue to trace and define its roots in the evolving nation that was the United States. Some feel that economic issues were dividing the union, and that Northern industrialization was creating a cultural gap virtually dividing the country. Others point to an uncertain Congress, desperate to expand the nation, as the cause. What ultimately emerges, however, is that all factors were in some sense related to the great issue of slavery. Then, the Compromise of 1850, attempting to sidestep that issue as a federal concern, set the stage for the war to come because slavery had become the defining issue as to the nation’s ultimate identity. As the following will reveal, the Compromise of 1850, which was in fact a collection of statutes, failed to confront the real crisis facing the U.S. and only increased the slavery debate that would finally take shape in the Civil War.

Discussion

In fairness to President Taylor’s administration at the time, enormous and complex issues were facing the U.S. that defied any simple solutions. More importantly, all of these issues reflected in some way the deep conflict between slavery factions and abolitionists. For example, after the Mexican War, territorial expansion was virtually exploding; gold had been discovered in California, thousands of miners were rushing to settle the territory, and statehood for California was inevitable. The problem was that California’s joining the Union as a free state would upset the careful balance between free and slave states that had been in place in the senate for decades. At the same time, the Texas territory posed a risk of being so large, it could be broken into five or six slave states. There was as well the issue of increased tensions regarding the massive slave trade in the nation’s capital itself, which fueled anger from Southern states over the perceived unwillingness of the federal government to recapture escaped slaves in the North (Rodriguez 240). In plain terms, slavery had consistently become the most pivotal concern, and one going beyond strictly ideological differences of opinion within the states. The reality was that the North, if generally opposed to slavery, relied on Southern farms for the cotton for their mills. Northern resorts depended on wealthy Southerners for their survival and, if the regions were ideologically divided on slavery, they were still united by powerful and mutually necessary interactions (Hamilton 5). The slavery status of the new states, then, was crucial in affirming what direction the nation would ultimately take.

What the Compromise of 1850 offered, however, was more of an evasion than any real addressing of the issue. Historians in fact argue that the Compromise is misnamed. It was more of a truce or temporary suspension of imminent hostilities, rather than an agreement meeting the demands of the involved parties in a ways satisfactory to all (Brady, McCubbins 343). When the separate elements of the Compromise are in fact examined, it becomes clear that this was an effort to bridge a gap that could not be bridged. The collected statutes sought to simultaneously affirm the rights of the Southerners to maintain slavery and guard against it in new states, an effort doomed because it plainly ignored that fact of such contrasting aims as impossible within a united nation. For example, the Texas and New Mexico Act of 1850, a component of the Compromise, determined the borders of Texas and gave New Mexico the right to be a free or slave state. The Utah Act was based on the same provision, and the choice offered to these states was clearly influenced by the federal governments grants of money, which reinforced its ambition that these states declare themselves free. Nonetheless, the “illusion” of choice was used to balance the admission of California as a free state, and the pretense only angered the Southern factions. In order to appease them, the Compromise then included a seemingly outrageous new law: the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Under this, slave owners were entitled to pursue runaways into Northern, free states, as it also allowed for heavy fines on any who assisted in escapes or protection of slaves (Rodriguez 241). Under the banner of compromise, the government was desperately trying to satisfy interests that were completely opposed.

That the Compromise would fall apart was inevitable due to this vital flaw. For example, and even while it was at first applauded as a worthy effort to responsibly meet conflicting interests, sectional tensions soon increased. Even as Texas and New Mexico opted to be free states and comply with the federal agenda, hostilities were expressed by neighboring slaves states. Also, the stringent Fugitive Slave Act had the effect of increasing Northern assistance to runaway slaves, rather than suppressing it (Rodriguez 241). This was likely due to the profound – and more angered – ideology of the North more intent than ever on fighting what it held to be a gross violation of human rights. This in turn fueled resentment in Southerners, who perceived the Act itself as only a subterfuge from a federal government clearly opposed to their interests. Given these consequences, as well as the fact that civil war would finally bring these conflicts to a head only 13 years later, it may be that the most remarkable aspect of the collection of laws known as the Compromise of 1850 was that any intelligent government leaders could believe it to be an effective and responsible strategy.

Conclusion

It is important to remember, in assessing the factors leading up to the Civil War, that slavery itself was linked to other and enormous issues. The nation was growing rapidly and industrialization was taking hold in the North, just as that industrialization relied on Southern trade. Then, there was the critical element of where the rights of states began and the power of the federal government ended, here underscored by slave or free state status. Behind all of this was a federal government desperate to maintain unity, and to that end the Compromise of 1850 was created, to attempt to meet the needs of all. It was, in plain terms, an exercise in futility because the core issue of slavery intrinsically does not admit to compromise in a united nation. Ultimately, the Compromise of 1850 completely failed to address the real crisis facing the U.S., and it only increased the slavery debate that would finally erupt in the Civil War.

Works Cited

Brady, D. W., & McCubbins, M. D. Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress: New Perspectives on the History of Congress. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. Print.

Hamilton, H. Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1964. Print.

Rodriguez, J. P. Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2007. Print.